lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Reasons why the Lightsaber Needs to be Made Respectable
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 08-12-2001, 10:22 AM   #121
UberChild
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 83
Post

In my green aahze of wisdom do you guys think it might be possible to forcs push weapon projectiles away from you, i.e the bolts or rockets or whatever, or maybe a new force shield which pops up for 3 seconds or something, both of these ideas comin at the expense of a little bit of force power, this would give the saberist time to get up to the shooter while they reload, and slash them to hell... also i suggest takin away force powers from gunners to even things up a bit or at least decrease their powers. forcew speed plus conc = unfair.. well it did in jk.. these are just ideas, and i know the last bit has been debated elsewhwer.. well thats whayt im thinkin...


AMD 2600XP
512 mb RAM (400mhz)
G-force 3 ti 500
19'' monitor
80 GB + 30 GB drives
UberChild is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 12:42 PM   #122
ed_silvergun
 
ed_silvergun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Blighty
Posts: 608
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Denise:
<STRONG>Personally, I think a Force power is a more plausible defense against such things. Some form of telekinesis could alter the trajectory of the incoming fire; there is precedent for this in the EU on projectiles up to the starfighter missile scale (Luke has been known to, quote, "tap" proton torpedoes to ensure a hit, see the escape from the Chimera in Heir to the Empire). Care would have to be taken to avoid this power becoming too useful, but it's just a rough idea.</STRONG>
Well, there's a precedent for this kind of telekinesis in this very game. We already know that the saber can be guided through the air to a target once it's been thrown. So if a saber can, why not a detonator charge?

Anyway, I don't know what all this argument is about the lightsaber blade resistance. As somebody pointed out, electrons cause friction, so if the saber blade is pure energy, it would follow that for it to create friction/resistance against a solid object, it would have to be electrical energy. Is it? I would assume if it was that nobody could survive any lightsaber hit, as the electrical charge would kill even if the blade did not...


Galactic Plumberman - For All Your Liquid Needs
ed_silvergun is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 01:39 PM   #123
Emperorsbauble
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2
Post

Thank God we, the fans, are not in charge of making this game. If we were, we would still be debating the title of it, much less the game mechanics.
Emperorsbauble is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 02:09 PM   #124
KillerBee
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Post

/me thinks force throw should effect thermal dets and rail launcher charges
so a jedi can use force throw to defend against thermies and rails.
leaving the conky to go through the sabre, but should not be as powerful as rails or thermies or blasters..

(and the name should be DF3)
KillerBee is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 03:55 PM   #125
Vagabond
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Denise:
Mm hmm, but we have ample example of sabers cutting effortlessly through objects more to scale with the rail charge here, for example the steering vanes on the one speeder bike on Endor.
A counter-example occurs during the duel in The Empire Strikes Back. There, Luke strikes Vader on his shoulder armor with his lightsaber. Although it was a glancing blow, according to your previous statements Luke's blow would have travelled unimpeded into Anakin's shoulder muscle and bone.

We know that this is not what happened. Rather, sparks flew, the blow was partially deflected off of Vader's armor, and apparently some heat energy was transfered to Vader's body as evidenced by his vocalization of pain.

What I am illustrating is that your apparent position that a lightsaber can move through matter, without resistance, is not supported by the visual evidence from the movies. Let's recap:

1. Luke's blow to Vader's shoulder armor (TESB).

2. Qui-Gonn assault on the blast door (TPM).

3. Obi-Wan's inability to penetrate the shield door (TPM).

4. That lightsabers do not pass through each other (all movies).

5. Luke's assault on the skiff guards that apparently resulted in no dismemberment (ROTJ) - I found that odd though.

And just for the sake of argument, let us presume that lightsabers do in fact cut through all matter without resistance (which I don't believe is the case). With regard to intercepting a rail detonator with the lightsaber, if one did intercept the projectile and disarm it, one is still subjected to physical damage in the form of the two cleaved detonator halves that:

(a) are still traveling at a velocity
great enough to impart significant harm to a biological entity.

(b) due to the Jedi's intervention to deflect the projectile, the detonator halves are now likely centered on a direct collision course to the Jedi's body.

So, even if a Jedi could disarm a rail detonator in flight, there are still two very fast moving pieces of projectile that will impact the Jedi. Non-explosive, granted, but equivalent to large, relatively slow-moving bullets.

Either way, harm comes to the Jedi.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 04:14 PM   #126
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Of course, and this is for pure arguements sake only. Taking that last example Vagabond, the Jedi could just step to the side (remembering the speed at which a rail charge moves) and still slice through the charge.
I beleive Qui-gonn deflects a blaster shot headed for the Queen, this would be precident that Jedi dont have to be directly behind their lightsaber to block incoming shots. Thus the charge that is now two pieces (and quite incapable of exploding, from your example only) glides past and hits an object or runs out of velocity and fall to the ground.

I dont think that should happen, but thats just in opposition to you last example.


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 04:43 PM   #127
Vagabond
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In game terms, there is no real point into deflecting blasts that are directed to other individuals. Further, how to indicate to the game that that is your intention, is also something of an interface issue.

No, I submit that fire deflection only pertain to fire directed directly at you. It's easier, it's cleaner, and it makes more sense. If you want to deflect fire intended for another, assuming you have the reflexes to spot it in the first place, then just place yourself in front of the shot and try your best to deflect it. Remember, we're not real Jedi, as such we don't have the real Jedi reflexes of Qui-Gonn. Our regular Human reflexes will have to do.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 04:53 PM   #128
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Well I dont think coming up with a blocking system like that would be all that hard, but what it would do is over complicate the controls. I do agree with you, that was just what may be possible if we saw a rail charge fired at a Jedi in an actual movie.

No, a much better system is just to allow force push to force it off target, as others have pointed out.


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 06:23 PM   #129
Vagabond
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Again, assuming your reflexes can react fast enough. The sequence of events:

1. Enemy fires weapon.
2. You, the Human, must spot the incoming fire via the game display.
3. You must propertly position your character.
4. You must target, or aim at, the incoming fire.
5. You must depress the appropriate button(s) in invoke the necessary force power.

With rail charges, this may, repeat may be possible. Anything faster would likely require near-Jedi reflexes.

In any event, it would seem a waste of effort to implement a force power that could only be used to deflect rail charges.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 06:39 PM   #130
ed_silvergun
 
ed_silvergun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Blighty
Posts: 608
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by Vagabond:
<STRONG>
What I am illustrating is that your apparent position that a lightsaber can move through matter, without resistance, is not supported by the visual evidence from the movies. Let's recap:

1. Luke's blow to Vader's shoulder armor (TESB).

2. Qui-Gonn assault on the blast door (TPM).

3. Obi-Wan's inability to penetrate the shield door (TPM).

4. That lightsabers do not pass through each other (all movies).

5. Luke's assault on the skiff guards that apparently resulted in no dismemberment (ROTJ) - I found that odd though.</STRONG>
Numbers (3) and (4) on that list have nothing to do with matter at all. Both the shield door and sabers are made from energy, not matter.

However, despite the fact that the physics behind pure energy causing friction when travelling through matter are very questionable to say the least, the evidence presented in official Star Wars canon would point to this being the case. If this is so, it would be reasonable to assume that smaller, weaker objects (like the steering vanes on a speeder bike) would be more easily cut than stronger materials such as Vader's protective body armour. Similarly, Luke had to go for the unprotected and more vulnerable underside of the AT-AT rather than trying to slash its frontal armour (which even snowspeeders couldn't blast through).

Either way, Vagabond is right: while the evidence would indicate that a rail charge could (theoretically) be slashed by a saber, either it would detonate or be split into a couple of pieces which would still hit the Jedi. I would therefore conclude that if rail charges were to be deflected, some sort of Force power (like Force push) would be by far the best way of going about it.


Galactic Plumberman - For All Your Liquid Needs
ed_silvergun is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 06:54 PM   #131
Tap[RR]
 
Tap[RR]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 190
Red face

Force push should NOT be used only for rail's, i think pushing rails outta the way with this force power, will be a bonus. An addition to the power, also i think force push should be interactive with everything like a lost saber, and that would put the force powers to use, instead of them being an added bonus, or just used for pushing the opponent. It would also give the force-pull some use the force pull could counter the force pushed saber, and help you get it back before the other jedi or gunner gets you. Also i stated in page 4 of this topic, that in the jk2 video you notice that the force counter dissappears when he selected a gun, and reappeared when he withdrew his saber. Maybe raven has set a balance to force using, i personally hope so. (GO READ MY POST ON PAGE FOUR!!! )
Tap[RR] is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 09:31 PM   #132
KillerBee
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Post

"In game terms, there is no real point into deflecting blasts that are directed to other individuals. Further, how to indicate to the game that that is your intention, is also something of an interface issue."

I got 2 nfer mates wif blasters
and I am standing in front wif a sabre..
KillerBee is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-12-2001, 09:43 PM   #133
Vagabond
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
That's assumimg there are personalities/classes in JKII. I hope JKII has something similar to MotS personalities, but we've not yet had confirmation of that yet.

Still, the fact remains that it would be infeasible, in the game, to block anything faster than a JK-style rail charge simply because we couldn't react fast enough - by this I mean that we couldn't position our charachter in the path of the incoming fire quick enough for the assumed "auto-blocking" feature to engage.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 12:23 AM   #134
Denise
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington state, USA
Posts: 231
Post

Quote:
Either way, Vagabond is right: while the evidence would indicate that a rail charge could (theoretically) be slashed by a saber, either it would detonate or be split into a couple of pieces which would still hit the Jedi. I would therefore conclude that if rail charges were to be deflected, some sort of Force power (like Force push) would be by far the best way of going about it.
Excuse me, isn't that exactly what *I* was saying from the start? Thank you.. didn't know about my name change, though. Does this mean I get moderator abilities?
Denise is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 12:36 PM   #135
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

I guess it's worth repeating now: consider the game balance. Regardless of your position on 'physics', if you charge the Jedi a portion of force for saber blocking at the very least it should be capable of deflecting heavy weapons fire. Otherwise the lightsaber will again be left as a side-show curiosity, rather than a weapon of first resort.


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 02:20 PM   #136
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Physics, which most here now agree shows us why you wouldn't want to directly block a rail to begin with (because you would take damage in some form or another as most have deduced), plus the fact that you can easily avoid the rail at its current pace, makes the rail as I see it a moot point of discussion. Since this is all hypothetical I won't add the fact that the Rail is not confirmed to even be in JK2 to this equation. The only saving grace of this is probably that there might be a weapon that servers a similar function of the Rail in JK2.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 02:25 PM   #137
Kurgan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

On a somewhat releated not, I once read somebody claiming that they could (in JK or MotS, maybe both) use Force Destruction to detonate incoming Rail charges.

Anybody ever try this? In all my years playing I never ran across this and I forgot to test...

If it worked, maybe that would be a possible "solution" to this.

Kurgan
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 02:28 PM   #138
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Originally the force taken for a Jedi to block was for the proposed ability to Return Fire To Sender. I assume you still remember this, so are you now proposing that on top of being able to redirect fire of certain weapons directly back to sender that Jedi be allowed to block all types of weapon fire and return them all to sender?

From a pure balance standpoint, the Jedi is now too Uber. There must be another way consider this that doesn't produce the conclusion that if Jedi can't block heavy weapons the saber will still be a joke.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 02:38 PM   #139
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Add to that, we don't actually know what Jedi Outcast's overall tempo will be so conclusions about how easy it will be to avoid the rail aren't based on observation. Just experience with JK/MotS. Same is true for all gameplay elements.

Although somewhat interesting, these theories about splitting rails and shrapnel damage aren't really helping address the question of how to improve the saber. (Btw one could swat a rail off to one side like a baseball, completely avoiding shrapnel damage.)

Look at the problem from a gameplay perspective. Seeing how frequently splash damage occurs, blocking heavy weapons fire really isn't that much of an improvement, and worries that it would make the saber an uber weapon aren't well-founded. Sure it will work against the occasional direct shot, but how often does the direct shot really occur? Sometimes, but not often.

For instance, if you've tried the 'Spork' mod for Jedi Knight you see how rare the 'return to sender' event actually is. In Spork, splash isn't blocked. Only direct concussion shots. It's very infrequent that a concussion round is defelected back.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 03:41 PM   #140
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Although somewhat interesting, these theories about splitting rails and shrapnel damage aren't really helping address the question of how to improve the saber. (Btw one could swat a rail off to one side like a baseball, completely avoiding shrapnel damage.)
I thought we were going to address the game from a balance standpoint, but since we are still sneaking in BTWs: I said most of us agree that directly blocking the rail means you will still take damage, as in easier to manange blocking that is more stationary in nature. I've read Syndrix's example of swatting the rail from the side, but even he admits that while this is theoretically possible they should not implement this because it would over complicate things; it does not make sense from a "gameplay persective."

Spork is based off an engine that is over 4 years old and counting, all without proper collision detection. Who is to say that Raven cannot enable autoblock to cover a wider range and scoop lower to the feet of the Jedi, denying gunners their absolute maximum splash damage where they aim for it and need it the most? Why do you assume that Raven would only allow blocking of mostly the upper body only?

What you propose might seem harmless enough at first, but when you consider how far they could easily take blocking, something needs to be put in check to insure we don't have uber Jedi; nothing was specified in this regard and that is easily something to worry about.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 03:43 PM   #141
ed_silvergun
 
ed_silvergun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Blighty
Posts: 608
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally posted by Denise:
<STRONG>Excuse me, isn't that exactly what *I* was saying from the start? Thank you.. didn't know about my name change, though. Does this mean I get moderator abilities?</STRONG>
Yes, looking back through the posts on this thread, I see that it was you who originally brought up this point. I'm sorry, but I quite simply can't remember exactly who said what throughout the entirety of a six-page topic. I hereby offer my most sincere apologies for attributing it to Vagabond, who I feel should also apologise for so rudely stealing your idea in the first place.
So, to make amends:

Quote:
Originally posted by Denise:
<STRONG>So when you slice through that projectile the pieces will, as they say, "tend to remain in motion". If you're in any postion to put your saber through one it will probably be "tending" directly towards you and you're going to get hit anyway. I wonder what it feels like to get slammed into by a fist-sized glob of semi-molten material? There must not be much consolation in actually stopping the explosion at that point.</STRONG>
Either way, Denise is right: while the evidence would indicate that a rail charge could (theoretically) be slashed by a saber, either it would detonate or be split into a couple of pieces which would still hit the Jedi. I would therefore conclude that if rail charges were to be deflected, some sort of Force power (like Force push) would be by far the best way of going about it.



Galactic Plumberman - For All Your Liquid Needs
ed_silvergun is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 03:50 PM   #142
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Also to note: maximum splash damage will always be achieved at the feet, unless a Jedi is backed up against a wall or is traveling along side it, which are two far less likely scenarios. The damage done from splash weapons that would be ruled outside the feet blocking radius of a super-human Jedi cannot be determined by anyone here, although if most previous games are an indication there is usually a rapid decrease in the splash effectiveness beginning over very short distances from the target. All to not make splash guns too powerful of course.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 03:53 PM   #143
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Good point. The Saber blocking zone could be a hemisphere, centered on the lightsaber handle and extending the distance of the lightsaber length (or possibly just shorter than the length). It would face the direction the Jedi is looking. And even the Jedis feet could get some protection (although the width of this zone would be smallest at the feet).

The gunner could easily defeat this zone by aiming in front or aside of the target, outside of the blocking sphere, but within splash range.

One way to tone down the supposed 'Über-Jediness' of heavy weapons blocking would be to add an 'acquisition time' requirement. The saberist has to see the incoming projectile for say 0.5 seconds in order to properly 'set up' a block. If the projectile is fired at close range with very short flight time, the defender wont be able to effectively block. Note this proposed 'acquisition time' would apply to the heavy weapons projectiles only. The logic being that the Jedi needs time to assess how and where to hit the target in order to neutralize its detonator. Deflection of lasers would not have an acquisition time.

This would encourage the gunner to close in for the kill. But moving in would also increase his vulnerability to the saber-bearing target.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 04:11 PM   #144
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I agree that the gunner could defeat the zone, but from where I'm standing it would not be an easy thing to do.

I'm no slouch at FPSes but aiming and getting as close to someone's feet as possible while they are jumping and dogging left to right has never been extremely easy. Add to that the fact that I'll have to worry about avoiding their blocking radius (and doing it all at the pace of their force speed).

Front on rushes by Jedi are another thing to consider as I see them being even harder to fend off then shooting at a Jedi who is merely traversing the level and not heading directly for you. You'd have to worry about preventing the Jedi from squaring away with you during his approach, other wise his frontal feet block would scope up most of your heavy weapons fire and you wouldn't be able to get at him before you reaches you with his quickness.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 04:37 PM   #145
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The saberist has to see the incoming projectile for say 0.5 seconds in order to properly 'set up' a block.

For clarification purposes, what counts as seeing? Peripheral vision- ie so long as the projectile is on your computer screen for a certain time, even if it is coming from a corner that you aren't aware of it because you are focusing on another part of your screen, this still counts? As far as I can see your system would have to find a way to exist in harmony with the current proposed idea of a saber blocking radius (which is heavily influenced by the angle in which you can see and face the incoming projectile) or replace it entirely.

If the projectile is fired at close range with very short flight time, the defender wont be able to effectively block.

For clarification purposes again, what do you mean by effectively? Does this non-effective blocking entail you not being able to get a saber in front of the projectile so it in turn hits your person?

Note this proposed 'acquisition time' would apply to the heavy weapons projectiles only. The logic being that the Jedi needs time to assess how and where to hit the target in order to neutralize its detonator. Deflection of lasers would not have an acquisition time.

Your idea was making sense until you got to this. I suppose you figured I would have a problem with this part... I think you know why... I still think that anything you would do to block/come in contact with the heavy weapons projectile (short of side-stepping it and then slashing it, which I see only adding complexity to the game and it might be beyond a player's reflexes as well) would still cause you harm.

Other things:

I'm not meaning to fully explore this tangent now, but saber deflecting versus non-heavy weapons Sniper Fire would factor into the first two things I quoted you on in this post as well.

The power of the sniper is in his concealment and often surprise from long distances. If you can't see the sniper or where his fire is coming from, then the 'Saber Blocking Radius' of a Jedi would be meaningless according to your current idea we are exploring (even a direct shot to the front of a Jedi), because all laser fire would not require "aquisition time." My point being that a good sniper could absolutely reck havoc on a group of Jedi with this acquisition system, depending on how powerful one sniper shot is. Even if the Jedi had Force Seeing on I personally could probably drop three Jedi in a group with well-placed shots before they can use Force Seeing to locate me. That seems kind of unbalanced to me...

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 04:44 PM   #146
KillerBee
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Post

I think the idea of stopping the rail wif a sabres pointless, the jedi should use the force.
Hell he should pull the gun to start with
force push/throw should deflect the shots..

from a SW physics pov thats very plausible
the conky is different, instant travel for secondry, + its just air..
If the conky is in jk2, I would like to see the splash balls do near 0 damage, and just be used to knock people about.. where as the stream fire is similar to a rail, but not pin point damage.. but thats where the pain comes from.
rails, should be easy to disarm at range (pull or push them)
at close range, the sabrest should be able to destroy the weapon itself with a sabre.. like luke in rotj..
damage to rof rates should imo be used to make heavy weapons bad for straight combat, with blasters doing a ton more damage per second. to make the use of the splash weapons limited to taking out groups.
you could sabre a guy with a rail.. I used to in cargo soldiers for fun..

if their is a class system, which is like AvPs ie classes have unique powerups. so jedi cant use guns, then the advantages of the force and a sabre should be enough.. if you got a guy with a rail, you ambush him..
seeing v someone without seeing, if you got a melee weapon and they got a ranged weapon would be Very fair...
KillerBee is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 05:00 PM   #147
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Posted by Krayt Tion
Quote:
My point being that a good sniper could absolutely reck havoc into a backs of Jedi with this acquisition system, depending on how powerful one sniper shot is. Even if the Jedi had Force Seeing on I personally could probably drop three Jedi in a group with well-placed shots before they can use that to locate me. I'm not sure things should go down like that...
Please clarify this, Wilhuf's acquisition system only applied to heavy weapons, the sniper is just a blaster bolt still. So if someone were facing in his general direction, within the "sphere", it would be blocked automatically. The acquisition principal doesnt apply to a sniper rifle, so it could do quite a bit of damage to the back of targets whatever the blocking system, couldnt they?
Also, I think to many people assume Force Seeing is going to be the same as it once was...

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 05:09 PM   #148
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

'Seeing' means seeing the incoming projectile: You can see it on your screen, peripheral or dead ahead, no difference. Seeing in this case has nothing to do with 'Force Seeing.' If someone shoots at you from behind with a rail and you turn to see it before it hits, but still don't have time to 'aquire,' you take the hit. Likewise, if someone shoots you and you see the projectile long enough (.5 sec maybe less?) you block the shot, provided it intersects your blocking zone.

For lasers (including sniper fire), acquisition time doesn't come into play. Nor does 'seeing' the incoming fire. You just block if the shot intersects the blocking zone. Fairly straightforward.

And of course the Jedi can only block so many rounds per second. Massive repeater fire would not likely be 100% blocked, for instance.

Snipers could still shoot a Jedi in the head from behind without the shot being blocked. Nothing controversial in that, really. If the round hits the target without passing through the blocking zone, its a clean hit and the Jedi is damaged.

The Jedi would have to turn and face the enemy sniper in order to block (presumably hitscan) sniper shots. Not because the Jedi must see the shots, but in order to place the blocking zone between him and the enemy.

The defensive blocking zone is really just a hemisphere in front of the Jedi. (Actually it would more likely be a plane or diamond shaped volume for ease of calculation).

I will make a diagram later to illustrate my concept! That should be fun.

For clarification what I mean by 'If the projectile is fired at close range with very short flight time, the defender wont be able to effectively block:' It's simply that if a gunner attacks a Jedi at close range, the projectile travel time will be very short of course. So, the Jedi will not be able to acquire the incoming projectile, will not be able to block, will take the hit and take full damage. His attempt at blocking would be 'ineffective.'

Don't worry about 'sidestepping' shrapnel. That just adds unnecessary complexity. Conceptually, when blocking, the Jedi simply smashes the rail out the way, swatting the shrapnel aside, neutralizing the detonator. Concussion rounds are deflected. Batter up!

In some cases the Jedi might deflect a concussion round into a nearby wall or the ground, giving himself splash damage. Jedi have to be careful where they deflect concussion rounds.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 05:44 PM   #149
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Posted by Wilhuf
Quote:
And of course the Jedi can only block so many rounds per second. Massive repeater fire would not likely be 100% blocked, for instance.
Oh Wilhuf dont say that, please, one of the things I want corrected is this exact problem. If you are charging towards a gunner, like Krayt Tion said, the gunner should somehow be able hit the saberer with splash damage. But conversely the Jedi charging towards the gunner should be able to block all direct non-heavy weapons fire.

If not then we would see a repeat of JK, the saber blocking a shot when you go to attack, you dont actually attack because when you pressed the button it auto-blocked instead and then the next few shots get past your auto-block. So you get damaged and dont actually do any damage to the opponent.

A Jedi would be limited to a certain amount of blocks a second, but in game terms I dont think any gun fires at a fast enough rate. I believe even the repeater gun isnt fast enough to get past an experienced saberist (which I assume Kyle is), it only fires at a shot a second, I think . The only ways non-heavy weapons fire should be able to get past a saber is with supercharge thing, the accelerated fire rate may be too much to block all the shots. But I think that should be taken out anyway, make it more strategic. Or perhaps if shots from two different people came in at the same time, one would get through.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 05:59 PM   #150
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Well this is a good example supporting my reasoning that auto blocking should be a toggle, not just always active. If you don't want autoblocking, switch it off.

Anyway, the gunner has to be able to get at least a few rounds through the saber blocking zone. Otherwise, what is the fun in an all-blocking Überjedi?

BTW I hope they boost the Repeater power significantly. It seemed pretty weak in JK.


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 06:01 PM   #151
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Syndrix:
<STRONG>Please clarify this, Wilhuf's acquisition system only applied to heavy weapons, the sniper is just a blaster bolt still. So if someone were facing in his general direction, within the "sphere", it would be blocked automatically. Even without his acquisition principal a sniper could do quite a bit of damage to the back of targets, couldnt they?
Also, I think to many people assume seeing is going to be the same as it once was...</STRONG>
You quoted me on that before my edit which is why you might have been confused. That sentence there had nothing to do with hitting the back of a Jedi even though it had the typo "back" in there.

It's not posssible for me to think that a Jedi should block behind his back, if you read my older posts, I never supported that, nor do I now. For further clarification read below.

Quote:
'Seeing' means seeing the incoming projectile: You can see it on your screen, peripheral or dead ahead, no difference. Seeing in this case has nothing to do with 'Force Seeing.' If someone shoots at you from behind with a rail and you turn to see it before it hits, but still don't have time to 'aquire,' you take the hit.
Never did I say Force Seeing had anything to do with blocking or 'aquisition time.' Only finding the shooter after he has fired on you so you can go kill him. That's the only reason I included force seeing in my last post. So please explain what that has to do with the argument. Nor at any point in time did I support a Jedi's ability by any means to block a shot that is fired at his back within most distances. So I don't understand the response there either.

Quote:
Likewise, if someone shoots you and you see the projectile long enough (.5 sec maybe less?) you block the shot, provided it crosses your blocking zone.

For lasers (including sniper fire), acquisition time doesn't come into play. Nor does 'seeing' the incoming fire. You just block if the shot intersects the blocking zone. Fairly straightforward.
I wasn't competely confusing Sniper Fire with heavy weapons fire as you seem to think. I understand the basic underlying concepts here. My quam with the Sniper Fire actually resides in the concept of blocking everything whether you are facing within certain angle in relation to the incoming blaster fire or not. This system is all fine and dandy when you can see your attacker, but in this system players are rewarded with a block even if they have unwittingly wandered front-first into the scoped view of a sniper who (if they don't activate Force Seeing) is completely invisble to them! This could very well be explained as the computer giving you super-human abilities that a Jedi should have that you cannot simply give yourself. From a balance standpoint though does this Jedi Blocking System, which I think is good for other types of blaster fire, make them too uber against snipers? As it would stand snipers would lose half their hidden right (baring Force Seeing) to hit those who are unware or too far away to be aware, even for a Jedi.

I find it strange that I find myself arguing for better gunner abilities but it is all in the name of balance...

Quote:
Don't worry about 'sidestepping' shrapnel. That just adds unnecessary complexity.
Yep, said this, I of course agree.

Quote:
Conceptually, when blocking, the Jedi simply smashes the rail out the way, swatting the shrapnel aside, neutralizing the detonator.
Still disagree. This still comes down to how the rail should react when it hits the saber, in terms of physics but also balance. Re-expressing your stance on this in light of this aquisition system changles changes little in this regard.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 06:05 PM   #152
Syndrix
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 212
Post

Well, yes Wilhuf, that is true, I just tend to over compensate because the saber was relatively useless against an experienced gunner in JK. Also I'm thinking of JK's unbalanced play which I shouldnt do.

If the repeater is boosted up and its fire rate improved then I can belive some shots would get through, it just seemed too slow in JK.

Also I mentioned auto-blocking being toggle-able somewhere. I would most certainly want this to be an option, if you dont want to block you shouldnt have to.

And no, I dont want an Uber-Jedi saberist. That would be just the reverse of JK.

Edit: I now agree with Krayt Tion, after that clarification, about the sniper rifle. While one could argue that blocking a shot you dont know is coming, ie. a hidden sniper,is the Jedi's seeing in to the future as some say Vader did in cloud city with Han's blaster fire. From a balance of gameplay perspective, it would present too many problems. What is the point of Raven refining the sniper rifle in JK2, if it is not useful at all because you have to get a back shot (which is harder than it sounds) or it is blocked.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]


Genius is limited, unfortunately stupidity is not thus so.
Syndrix is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 06:43 PM   #153
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

From a balance viewpoint, arguing against blockable heavy weapons (based on 'physics,' or not) is, intenational or not, an attempt at weakening the lightsaber.

Saber blocking against sniper rounds in the original Mysteries of the Sith was midly effective. A fairly good portion of sniper rounds got through, many did not. And the blocking could be done, even if you didn't see the enemy straight ahead. That worked pretty well.

Concept is simple : Jedi uses force enhanced reflex to defend against unseen enemies. Like Luke using his 'danger sense' to detect unseen enemies in the Tim Zahn novels.

Ok guys, so any other suggestions for actual improvements?

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 06:57 PM   #154
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The proposed saber blocking system that we've been evolving and discussing, especially with your blast blocking/heavy weapons block aquiring system in mind, has already differentiated itself enough from any old JK blocking system that to it isn't very accurate to purely transfer the qualities of one aspect of blocking (like sniping in what I think you mean is MotS) creates mismatches with the rest of the system. Kind of like introducing a bug patch that in term produces more problems.

I hope by putting emphasis on actual improvements that you are not implying that the dicussion we've had today has not been helpful. Debating the validity of a proposed idea is in itself an improvement. Working to refine that idea, incorporate it into other ideas or simply 'cross it off the list' is an excellent way to go about things, imo.

I've said my share enough today already, I'll probably be able to post some more later to improve the saber, perhaps later tonight.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 07:05 PM   #155
Krayt Tion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nice editing, ug. I'm getting tired of having to change my argument as someone edits their post while I am typing, just as it is annoying for people to have me unknowingly edit my message after they have replied. The constant cycle of editing shall never cease. Maybe it is time to start editing my messages in Word.

Forgot to respond to this

Concept is simple : Jedi uses force enhanced reflex to defend against unseen enemies. Like Luke using his 'danger sense' to detect unseen enemies in the Tim Zahn novels.

Yes, explaination to why this would happen is very doable and easy to present, Syndrix outlined one, I outlined one... there is little point in outlining another here that works just a well. It is the practical concept that is important here, that balance word again. Something that makes sure the snipers are actually somewhat useful.
  you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 07:30 PM   #156
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

Well, I am more interested in how to make game better. But if folks like to focus on why the ideas won't work, that is fine. A normal part of discussion.

In addition to physics, plausability/believability, balance, the mechanics of improvement, etc. we really have to ask foremost 'is this fun?'

How much fun would it be if the saber were more powerful (in the ways we have outlined)? Would it be more fun if heavy weapons could be blocked? Or would it be more fun to play if not? Those are some of the most important questions in this particular subdebate.


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 07:30 PM   #157
Boba Jim
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 86
Post

HOLY SHNIKIES!! Hemispheres of protection, Acquisitions of projectiles, Lightsaber Physics, Enhanced reflexes??!!

You guys REALLLLLY need to get out more. God I hope Raven stopped reading this thread a looooong time ago and completes a game that plays really well while breaking several of your rules of physics or continuity so it's still fun to play. No offense intended, but Geeessh!



Me on the set.

My lovely voice
Boba Jim is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 07:38 PM   #158
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

I think we have stumbled upon a new Force power. Introducing Force Edit™.

Hmm what we should do is wait to reply until at least a good 10 minutes or so after the post we are responding to is first made. Hopefully that will give the other guy enough time to fist make his corrections. Then we can minimize misquotes and omissions/comissions. In theory.


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 07:49 PM   #159
wardz
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 926
Post

I think Wilhulf has hit the nail on the head. I am not interested in the the laws of physics as far as a game of Jedi Knight is concerned, as long as the basic prinicples are in place...

If you want to talk about it hypothetically then thats fine, but don't let it ruin an otherwise potentially great game...

(thats 10 mins, that should cover it!)

wardz


Welcome to JKII.Net.

Please keep sig size to a minimum : )
wardz is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-13-2001, 07:50 PM   #160
Wilhuf
Senior Member
 
Wilhuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Galactic Plumberman Alliance -
Posts: 1,125
Post

No offense gonk, but 'God I hope Raven stopped reading this thread a looooong time ago' isn't really gonna make the lightsaber any better now is it?

Maybe so. They shouldn't waste their time on much of this debate. But, they should test some of the ideas!

We created the bulleted list™ so people who don't care about details or debate don't have to slog through it. Just read the list and enjoy:

Suggested Improvements:
  • Faster Lightsaber Attack Rate
  • Location Based Lightsaber Damage (and damage which could affect target movement)
  • Increased Lightsaber Damage
  • Ability to block heavy weapons fire with Lightsaber(at cost of Force Block and/or Force Push, requires a suitable 'acqusition time' during which the incoming projectile must be visible)
  • Toggled Automatic Lightsaber Blocking
  • Effective ranged lightsaber attack (faster, steerable Force lightsaber throw)
  • More lightsaber attack moves/combinations
  • Better lightsaber animations
  • Toned Down Speed and Jump (in decreased magnitude and duration and/or increased Force cost)
  • Force Pull to drag opponent within lightsaber killing range
  • Customizable gameplay settings (e.g., gravity, overall speed)

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]


Wilhuf

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill, 1941.
Wilhuf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Game Discussion > Jedi Outcast > Reasons why the Lightsaber Needs to be Made Respectable

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:00 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.